In order to keep things simple for our users, we try to use the same set of legal terms (our Universal Terms of Service) for many of our products. Sometimes, as in the case of Google Chrome, this means that the legal terms for a specific product may include terms that donâ(TM)t apply well to the use of that product. We are working quickly to remove language from Section 11 of the current Google Chrome terms of service. This change will apply retroactively to all users who have downloaded Google Chrome.

The Google EULA states that you grant them a non-exclusive right to store and reproduce your stuffs where necessary for the use of Google's services, which is a necessity because otherwise they'd be infringing on your IP rights by storing your files and serving them up to you. You retain copyright, ownership, blah de blah, as stated at the top of that part of the EULA. For Chrome, it's already been revised to only include the "you retain your rights" clause.

The facebook one is blatantly taking a right that it doesn't have a legitimate reason to take.

From their EULA:

"By accessing or using our web site at www.facebook.com or the mobile version thereof (together the "Site") or by posting a Share Button on your site, you (the "User") signify that you have read, understand and agree to be bound by these Terms of Use ("Terms of Use" or "Agreement"), whether or not you are a registered member of Facebook."

9.4 Other than the limited license set forth in Section 11, Google acknowledges and agrees that it obtains no right, title or interest from you (or your licensors) under these Terms in or to any Content that you submit, post, transmit or display on, or through, the Services, including any intellectual property rights which subsist in that Content (whether those rights happen to be registered or not, and wherever in the world those rights may exist). Unless you have agreed otherwise in writing with Google, you agree that you are responsible for protecting and enforcing those rights and that Google has no obligation to do so on your behalf.

a eula is a warm blanket that stockholders and potential investors curl up in, as most of them are very old and have only a vague grasp of what these con-sarnit tubes are about,a little draconian business practice makes everything a bit easier to buy into.

Sorry but anyone who thinks that a billion dollar company copies and pastes licenses in that un reviewed manner is less than a half wit.

If people bother to read the term it says (translating for morons) if you use their services you are agreeing they have a right to do the things with your copyrighted work necessary in order to provide the service.

In short if you didn't grant such terms even to transmit your document (as an example) to the service because would be copyright violation.

I'm not saying there aren't potential holes to abuse but almost all reporting I have seen is just wrong.

and it's total BS. I actually had this conversation with a friend that owns some 350 properties. It was quite an eye-opener for me. Evicting is not easy, not swift, and not free.

In numerous cases, he has simply told them "be out of here in three days and so long as you haven't trashed the place I'll even give you your deposit back." In the long run it works out far better for him than the 2 or so months of lost rent trying to get them through the eviction process, plus the cost to serve the notice, the time to go to court, etc. Evicting you is the last option the landlord wants to take. (unless you are a complete terror)

He really doesn't like evicting people. From his discussions with other landlords, in most cases, the tenant never shows up in court. But for his experience, EVERY SINGLE TENANT has shown up for court, drives him crazy. Every one of them fought it.

There are quite a lot of laws on the books to make eviction a long process, and you as a tenant cannot waive those rights by signing anything. Although it is legally possible to sign away any of your rights short of those in the constitution, there are laws forbidding contracts from including the surrender of certain rights. It doesn't nullify the rest of the lease agreement, but that part that says he can kick you on the street without warning, that part of the contract is void.

Another fun part, copyright is a strict liability issue. That means that no matter how well Facebook thought they had permission you can sue them anyway for up to $30000/work (as opposed to the 150000$/work for willful infringement RIAA/MPAA wants). That's one of the reasons you go with a stock photo agency - they usually offer some indemnity that their pictures really are cleared to use. Oh yeah and apart from that, there's the model release so unless it's only you in the picture they have to get that too.

Quite interesting, I clicked it out of curiosity after reading your post to see if it could do any harm since I consider myself protected enough by using Firefox on Linux with some restrictive settings. *Sigh*... The only way to get rid of it was to issue "killall firefox" - so much for the pop-up blocker. I guess using NoScript is not that paranoid after all.

The stock photo sites certainly think a click agreement is good enough to transfer the rights to your photos to their service. Why not Facebook? Do you have to click for each photo? No judge has had the chance to decide yet.

Unfair terms in these pre-written contracts are often thrown out by courts precisely because of the unequal bargaining power of the parties. It's not forced as such, but there is certainly recognition that they haven't been agreed between two equal and fully informed parties.

The paragraph details what rights and agreements whoever is signing the contract has with the other party in case said person breaks the law, is arrested, detained, or otherwise managed to piss off a governing body.

I kind of cheated a bit: any indemnification clause in a contract involves something like that. As a consultant for American companies in China, most of my contracts have some pretty complex indemnification clauses because of the local gov't.

I'm fairly certain it was actually referring to child pornography.If they actually cut people off for downloading porn, they wouldn't have any customers.Also, Google removed the "all your content are belong to us" clause from the license for Chrome.